Thanks a lot for informing. A short while back, I have already got another message informing about a similar incident. I admit that earlier I erroneously thought that taking small portions of text from relevant sources would be allowable and that it was not be a problem if I did not copy it on the whole. I did not mean to violate copyrights and am a serious editor otherwise. I was only ignorant of the fact. I have already taken it in consideration for my present edits. But there might be some violations in the edits that I have already made. I would definitely try to find them and rewrite them. But before that please do not consider me a brat/violator. I would also be glad if you could look up my edits and help me in doing the same. I do not wish them to be reverted as they would cause unnecessary loss of useful information.DiptanshuTalk05:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, particularly the sections about correcting it, for some good advice. I don't know anything about medicine and I'm very busy so I'm a little hesitant about going through your contributions systematically, but I'll give it a go if I have time. Graham8707:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue. Sooner or later I would brush through my old edits as well as the cited contents and would remove or rewrite any content that may have been plagarised. I understand that you are really busy but I wonder how you find so much time to make so many edits. Moreover, I am keen to know the reason that made you watch my edits.DiptanshuTalk10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thanks for the change to my user page; I don't mind at all. I quite literally don't do much besides Wikipedia at the moment ... but I find so many issues on my watchlist and around the site that it keeps me very well occupied. I'm willing to do one or two reviews every now and then, but not to occupy myself with it constantly. To lighten the workload and get more eyes on this situation (because I've never done something like this before), , it might be worth asking the medicine WikiProject or Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, but the latter option strikes me as extremely heavy-handed
For the answer to the question of how I found you, see the last two sentences of my initial message in this section; I found the Nenotal teeth article while searching for a word in your contributions (perhaps it was "Category"). Whatever it was, when I stumbled on the text you'd added from that journal article, it just seemed so discordant with the rest of the text I had to take another look.
Thinking about it some more, creating a Contributor copyright investigations (CCI) page to review your work might not be such a bad idea, especially if you're willing to co-operate, and we can get WikiProject Medicine on board. I'm suggesting this not as a punishment, but as a way for several people to systematically check your contributions and rewrite them if they can. Graham8712:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dipanshu, thanks for your good work on en.WP. When you say "Sooner or later I would brush through my old edits ...", it's important to recast any text you recognise as being too close to a source. The alternative, of course, is to directly quote and cite; but there's a limit to the size of individual quotations, and the proportion of an article that WP editors feel comfortable with as direct quotations. Here's an opportunity to forge some collaborative relationships with other editors. Cheers. Tony(talk) 12:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony for your cooperation. I would definitely look forward to forging a good, interactive and collaborative relationship with other serious editors. My answer to Graham will also answer your queriesDiptanshuTalk15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graham for your cooperation. I am a serious editor and am definitely willing to cooperate if a Contributor copyright investigations (CCI)page is created. An easier way may be be simply to review the list pages mentioned on my userpage, that I have contributed to. Systematically looking up those pages would be enough as the other edits might be irrelevant for you in this context. My availability often varies due to the nature of my work but I would definitely try to do my part.DiptanshuTalk14:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good job. I might have been a bit harsh there ... but one of my other concerns was that the source (written in 1978) may have been out of date. Yes, going through the articles on your user page systematically would be the best way to start, and there are not as many there as I'd feared, frankly, given your edit count ... like me, you seem to like doing maintenance edits. I've taken the liberty of moving this conversation to the end of the section. I noticed your reply to Tony last night, but I didn't realize you had also replied to me because of the position of your comments. Graham8706:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While at times I improve the contents of an article as I feel to be required, I often engage myself in enriching the references, copyedits and other maintenance edits. You can look up the edits that I have made today to Abetalipoproteinemia. The contents remains almost the same but a number of references have been added after cross checking. Although it may seem to be a thankless job as it might hardly get noticed, I believe it to be important.DiptanshuTalk07:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the deleted text for you to work on "Subconscious tracts function in maintaining subconscious regulation of balance, muscle tone, eye, hand, and upper limb position." Jimfbleak - talk to me?18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not exist on Wikipedia. The term "subconscious motor tract" does not appear in any book or academic publication, only in the college lecture notes that you cited, and they are not a usable source. We would effectively be inventing the term in our article, and we can't do that. I am going to add a "proposed deletion" template to the article. I hope you won't remove it -- if you do, we'll simply have to go through a more laborious process, and the article will end up deleted anyway. I'm sure you created it in good faith, so I don't cast blame on you, but one way or another the article has to go. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After creating the article, I too am going through various books. Although it seems not to be a standard term, I feel that it is a functional grouping of the tracts. Incidentally, talking about the autonomic nervous system that originates primarily from the spinal cord, much of it deals with motor response involving our viscera. I do not have any intentions of disturbing the standard operations of Wikipedia and so the question of removing the "proposed deletion" template does not arise. DiptanshuTalk06:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the calm response -- based on past experience, I was afraid we would end up getting into a battle. Let me deal with the various points that are raised here:
(1) Removing a "proposed deletion" template does not violate any policy. That template can be removed by any editor who thinks that it should not be there. The only bad thing about removing it in this case would be that (in my view) it wastes time for people, because the article would end up being deleted anyway via the AfD process, which is much more laborious. However, if you can find a better name for the article that is supported by good sources, there might be a legitimate reason to remove the prod template.
(2) I completely agree with you that our coverage of nerve tracts is defective. Unfortunately I don't know very much about that topic. I know quite a bit about brain anatomy, but only the basics concerning the spinal cord. Regarding grouping the tracts together, you might have better luck using the term "involuntary" rather than "subconscious". Even "unconscious" would be more likely than "subconscious" -- you might look at our article on the Subconscious to see the way that term in ordinarily used.
Thanks for your response. Though involuntary is a medically accepted term, the composite terminology has the same problems as the earlier one. I would try to look up an alternative term but by that time probably the article would be gone. I am userifying the article in my talk page for now. The link backs from the article pages of the four constituent pages and Spinal cord article page need to be modified after the aricle is gone. In the meantime, I would insist you to look for some serious editors (based on your past experience) who would be appropriate for the task on the spinal tracts.DiptanshuTalk04:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diptanshu.D! Just telling you I undid your good faith "subconscious motor tract" edits, with the following motivation: Very uncommon term. Please first create subconscious motor tract - and if it is accepted, you can revert this edit. Without the article it is only a confusing concept for our readers. (Readers will wonder what is meant and won't be able to find the answer in Wikipedia.) With friendly regards! Lova Falktalk18:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subconscious motor tracts : Article for deletion
Subconscious tracts are neural tracts for subconscious regulation of balance, muscle tone, eye, hand, and upper limb position.[1][2]
Tracts
They consist of four tracts that are involved in monitoring the subconscious motor control.[1]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Librax may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
to be effective. Stopping the drug suddenly can worsen the condition and cause withdrawal symptoms (anxiousness, sleeplessness, and irritability.<ref name="MedlinePlus" />
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
I really appreciate that rather than expressing personal view you sought a global view by initiating the discussion on Wikipedia Medicine talk page. The views would help me shape my future edits. DiptanshuTalk13:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you appreciated my contributions fixing references. A better example would be ones like this. Do you think there is any other way to involve other people to expedite the process of such edits? DiptanshuTalk13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree. I frequently encourage people to use the cite templates. I also think that we should have a more consistent referencing style (at least within medicine). We could then have bots or automated tools apply this more consistent style more widely. The first step would be obtaining a consensus for this. I have tried in the past but there was not previously much desire for this. Some of the little steps I have advocated for was placing refs over 1 line rather than dozens of lines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way that a bot could be set to tag the pages with references without any digital way of verification as in the unedited version of this? The references need to be verifiable and I think that like the refimprove, unreferenced, citation needed, etc. tags, if a similar tag could be designed and laid down by a bot (excluding the clumsy work that would have otherwise required human intervention), it would be much easier to take care of the issue of verifiability. DiptanshuTalk14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is acceptable to use references that can only be verified by going to a library. Thus getting consensus for this would be hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the validity of your statement. But when utilities like DOI, JSTOR and Google books have made life a lot easier, I was trying to find a way to make good use of such utilities. DiptanshuTalk14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, I felt that you might not be entirely right on this. In case of journal references PMID makes finding it a lot easier and in case of books ISBN serves a similar purpose. So, what I had been asking for, remains utilitarian. I am not saying that there is any harm if references are without them, I am only saying that its a lot better if these identifiers are present, its even better if they can be checked online. In case not everybody appreciates the view, a hidden category may still serve the purpose. DiptanshuTalk15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that all refs should have PMIDs and ISBN if available. Not all journal articles are pubmed indexed though. And not all ISBNs are accessible online. Would be great to have a bot that adds this if available though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that not all journal articles have PMIDs or DOIs. But the fact is that not all journals maintain authenticity or quality of the publication. As a matter of fact, apart from one or two, most Indian journals are neither authentic nor Pubmed indexed. So presence of Pubmed indexing or PMID adds to the authenticity journal articles (although lack of it does not mean that it is not qualitative). Most books however have ISBN but many are not accessible online. But let me come to the practical issue, I am not a programmer and cannot create a bot. How can we request someone to produce a bot in case one is needed. I would be glad if you can guide me through the process. DiptanshuTalk13:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Umbilical venous catheterisation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dusti*Let's talk!*02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diptanshu, Just saw your post on the page regarding the Cochrane Library Access. If you are interested in adding evidence to medical articles, please consider reading and signing up on this page. If you are new to EBM in general please have a look at [[3]] to get a basic idea. Please dont hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts/clarifications. Manu Mathew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umbilical venous catheterisation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dusti*Let's talk!*22:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Redirect
Hello,
We are trying to set up recording artist Moses Stone's wiki page on wiki he is our recording artist signed with our company and he was on a tv show called the voice there is a redirec page we need removed so we can set up his page for his fans and bussiness personal online info can you please help us with doing this.
Thanks for asking for my support. Here are the things I would like to let you know.
A page cannot be redirected to itself. If you want to remove the redirect from the page, remove the #REDIRECT and replace it with the contents of the article you want to produce. Else it would be considered as an unconstructive edit and possible vandalism and would be reverted.
Try to form a contructive article on Moses Stone if you wish to remove the redirect.
In your message on the talk pages, you can wikilink it to the respective page by enclosing it in double square brackets as in [[Moses Stone]]
When you write on a talk page, please sign by leaving ~~~~ after your message.
Hey Diptanshu. The translation task force is currently only 80 articles. There is discussion here about adding more topics [4] but we are not there yet as these 80 are enough at this point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have loved to participate but I am on a wikibreak till September or begining of October and would be acting at a very low level or not at all. Would participate after coming back (if applicable). Till then email would be the preferred route of communication. DiptanshuTalk13:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently added a link in the "See also" section of the article on Cubic zirconia, to the (currently nonexistent) article "American diamond". Are you about to create an "American diamond" article? If not, this link probably should not be included in the "Cubic zirconia" article — per WP:REDNOT, "Red links are generally not included in ... See also sections". If you believe there is a valid, pressing reason why this red link should be kept, I would be grateful if you could let me know what the reason is. Thanks. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)18:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Error
Kemon aschhis ? Kothay aschhis ?
And the first edit in your user page was in error, I didn't even look what it was. Probably your user page is in my watch list since its creation? And somehow I touched some sort of revert button in that page. Some minutes later, I realized that error on looking at my contribution, and then self reverted. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to have you add DOIs and PMCs. If the ref is only used once however <ref name="pmid22818936"> is not needed. Also I do not mind a few others listed by if there are a more than 10 do not wish them all there. People can click on the ref to seem them. I do not like the page numbers outside of the references. Thanks User:Jmh649Talk12:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The convention seems to list up to five authors, but if there's more than five then we just list the first three and then "et al". For the reader it is not that important that we list every author of every paper.
Of course I very much support the addition of DOI, PMID and PMC identifiers to references - they bring digital content to life. JFW | T@lk22:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, I frequently look up the references, moreso if they are journal references. DOI, PMID and PMC gives me accessible links for the same and even marks the credibility of the articles. Moreover, in a subject like medicine where the accepted facts are likely to vary with time and newer data, verifiability of the sources can be an important issue.
By the way, the new |displayauthors of Cite journal template does not leave an et al. after it hides any additional authors. Please see if something can be done about it. DiptanshuTalk03:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Column width as per resoulution
I saw that Bloom6132, Götz, Muboshgu and Sasata reverted my edit(s) where I had changed the layout for the references section to a 2 column one instead of using the 30em format. But tell me something. I am on a screen with a resoulution 1024x768. I do not consider this to be of very low width, and yet my browser displays the references in one single column. I feel that for people using desktops, 1024x768 is still a standard resolution. And I feel that this screen size can adequately support a two column layout without looking clumsy. What alternative do you suggest so that it displays in two columns for a 1024x768 screen? DiptanshuTalk15:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you said refers to setting my preferences. But this is not what I intended to ask. I spoke generally on behalf of other people who might be using a page width of 1024px. I feel that the two column layout should apply for them as well. DiptanshuTalk16:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can do the same as what I said above if they want two columns. Wikipedia can't satisfy everyone all the time, and I believe the 30em satisfies the majority of users. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Refer to Global browser statistics which reveal that the although 19.73% users have a screen width of 1366px., the number of people using 1024px. screen width is comparable at 13.75% (as of October 2013). In other words on using the 30em. layout, while 13.75% users (of 1024px screen width) would be disadvantaged being forced to view a single column layout, it would provide an extra advantage of being be able to view a 3 column layout by only 5.98% of additional users (of 19.73% users in excess of matching 13.75% on both sides). I do not think that 13.75% can be put on a disadvantage for the extra benifit of 5.98%. Point me out if I am in a statistical error. I still feel that the 2 column layout helps the majority although the number of users of greater resolution screen is higher. DiptanshuTalk16:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree with Bloom6132, setting customized CSS settings may be the best option. Those stats from w3counter include mobile users, which default to use the mobile version of Wikipedia. According to w3schools (doesn't seem to include mobile), display resolutions with a width greater than 1280px seems to be the majority, over 90%. This is the recommendations for number of columns by number of references. --Götz (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your views. Probably using em. layout is indeed better but this is not what I am fighting. I just suggest some format where the 1280px also displays a 2 column layout. It could well be that a 20em or 25em does the trick. I am not a technical person and need your inputs on this. DiptanshuTalk17:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why 30em was chosen as the "standard". Maybe, as you state, 20 or 25em could do the trick. But considering that the em unit is dependent on the height of the type size being used, not on the display resolution (but there is the relation between this and the font size being used); "for example, one em in a 16-point typeface is 16 points wide. Therefore, this unit is the same for all typefaces at a given point size". At the {{reflist}} talk page we might find an answer on the 20-25-30 or whatever value fits better. --Götz (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried out various combinations on my screen. I noticed that for 25-29em, it displays as 2 column but a 30em displays as one column. I think you should keep this in mind and use a number slightly lesser than 30 for the same. DiptanshuTalk18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before. The reason that two formats are allowed is that it is not clear that the 30 format is better on most pages. It is worse on mine -- forces one column. As with date formats, where more than one is acceptable, don't edit war for the one you prefer -- go, as we do with dates -- with the prior format. If you want to force the project to prefer your approach, do that at MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has already been reached. In addition to the four editors listed in the first comment of this section, TonyTheTiger has also added his support for 30em. It's clearly the most supported format between the two. Any reversions back to the {{reflist|2}} format demonstrates an WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude which is completely disruptive. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello friend, I noticed you have tinkered with Ejection Fraction. I enjoy tinkering with this stuff as much as Wiki will let me. I am a 55 y/0 WM Cardiology PA. I'd appreciate your review of my edits over the years. If you look carefully you will notice there a few hundred missing. I named this lost article "Injection Fraction" thinking that if you mathematically invert Fick's principle for diastole this is not "original work". I polished it the best I could and it ran unchallenged for almost two years. I saw it as just holding up a mirror to the prior work, an isomer if you will. Perhaps "Invert Fick" would have been a better title.
Boy was I ever wrong. Defining a volumetric for Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction has proved to be as ticklish a topic as any mathematician could approach. I was once kicked off of Wikipedia for three months for skirting the edges of encyclopedic knowledge. My grandchildren find this hilarious. I read a lot of cardiac physiology. When one starts to edit the literature on this subject they soon learn where the edges are. As an editor, I am now on the straight and narrow. I welcome further correspondence. Lbeben (talk·contribs) 05:14, 17 December 2013 (IST)
Paragraph
Hi,I noticed that your paragraphs were not in an orderly manner so i decided to inform you about it--EB1999 02:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb1999 (talk • contribs)
--EB1999 16:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)== wikiwiki ==
have you seen this article?
if yes i dont seem to understand its source--EB1999 16:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not specified the article. I do not remember any article on 'copyright violations'. Please write back with the exact article name within double square brackets as in [[Article name]] so that a wikilink is generated automatically. DiptanshuTalk19:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please will you not "carry over" citations from other articles without actually reading the sources that you cite. You made a lot of errors on 30 December by doing this, eg: at Kundu. One Wikipedia article is not reliable as a source for another, which is effectively what you were trying to achieve. In particular, those for India-related subjects are often hopeless even when sourced, partly because too many of the sources are themselves unreliable but also because people have a tendency to misrepresent the sources etc in the interests of showing their particular community in a good light.
Which you know. This is beginning to look like spam - in fact, the only reason I can think of to include the link within the book's citation is to publicise the wiki. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It seems from Dougweller's note that there may be more to this than I thought originally. If you are affiliated with jatland.com then there is indeed a wider problem. Please can you confirm/deny. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no affiliation or link ups with jatland.com. What I (or you people too) can do is to just remove the |url portion of the citation rather than reverting the edit altogether. DiptanshuTalk06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: and @Sitush: Although you prefer to be deletionists, I prefer the principle of Inclusionism which probably makes more sense. I do not feel that what you have recently done to the article Agharia is right. I understand that you are making edits in good faith but is the information is not contested in any form, what is the point in removing it? Place a tag {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} so that someone may take care of it at a later point of time. You may also browse the page history and try to leave a note on the talk page of the editor who had made the particular edit in the past (unless the edit is from an IP). There is less probability that the user would respond back, but the probability enriches Wikipedia. Also remember WikiLove is a rather important principle to be remembered and your actions may unnecessarily hurt new and inexperienced editors who could otherwise be stimulated to make better edits with appropriate citations. This is what I feel. Both of you are significantly more experienced than me and your edits would have more impact. But I strongly feel that unknowingly you are doing more harm than good. Point me if I am wrong. DiptanshuTalk07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming you have no relationship with jatland.com and removing it from citations. Inclusionism and deletionism apply to what articles should be on Wikipedia and do not override WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Any unsourced material that our readers can't see as obviously correct is likely to be challenged at some point and can be removed. The material in question was added all at once here[7] and is probably copvyio from [8] and in any case was badly sourced. It's a shame that edit wasn't reverted immediately but this article is only on 6 editors' watchlists now and it's possible most of them are no longer active. The editor in question added this in 2012 but did edit in 2013 removing unsourced material they thought from their own experience was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diptanshu.D, there is much unreliable information added to caste/gotra etc articles. Most stuff from the Raj period, for example, is considered to be unreliable, as are the glorifications found in caste association/.samaj histories and much of the "states" series of The People of India (which basically just copied stuff from Raj sources, often with little or no attribution). Of course, there may be occasional exceptions, of which one example is Kavalam Madhava Panikkar in the Nair article. This is just the way it is, sorry.
Now that we've cleared up the jatland issue, it is obvious that you meant well with your changes but you need also to be aware of WP:CITEVAR. Personally, I much prefer using some sort of citation template to none at all but you should really have sought consensus for most of your changes because that is the way the community has decided it should be. This is why you'll sometimes see me doing things like this, even on articles where I am the creator or by far the major contributor. I'm not going to revert your style changes but someone will need to go through what you've done to check for any more "carrying over" of citations from one article to another. You should never just copy cites from one article to another: I know that doing so implies good faith in the person who added the citation in the first place but it seriously damages the integrity of the project, especially in topic areas that are known to be troublesome anyway. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougweller: and @Sitush: Thanks for your reply. I predominantly edit medical articles where citations play a very important role. For example, If you follow my edits on Antenatal steroid today, you will come to know about the sort of work I do. Incidentally, similar sources for India related articles are hard to find. I prefer the cite book or cite journal template because of the consistency they provide. You can rest assured that I do not carry over the references from other articles, but in case of Kundu, I felt a logical connection and acted accordingly. The copyvio involved in India related articles are definitely a cause of concern. Elsewhere, primary sources might be an issue. But still I would strongly insist you not to drop information from the Wikipedia articles if there is a scope. Unlike medical articles, searching the internet for reliable references for India related articles is not very practical. But still trying to enhance the references rather than dropping the data seems wiser. Let me know if I can be of help somewhere. DiptanshuTalk14:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re:Indian childhood cirrhosis
Hello, Diptanshu Das. You have new messages at Rpyle731's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
. Alternatively, you can also e-mail me for a faster response.
